Develop Reference

In a stringified array is it possible to differentiate between quotes that were in a string and those that surrounded the string itself?

Some Context:
• I'm still learning to code atm (started less than a year ago)
• I'm mostly self taught at that since I think my computer science class feels
too slow.
• The website I'm learning on is code.org, specifically in the "game lab"
• The site's coding environments only use ES5 because they don't want to
update them to ES6 or something like that
• In class we're making function libraries and while not required, I want
mine to be "highly usable," for lack of a better term, while also being
reasonably short (prefer not to automate things if I can get them done
quicker somehow, but that's just personal preference).
So now for where the actual question comes in: in a stringified array, is it possible to differentiate between a quotation mark that was inside a string and a quotation mark that actually denotes a string? Because I noticed something confusing with the output of JSON.parse(JSON.stringify()) on code.org, specifically, if you write something like,
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(['hi","hi']))
the output will be ["hi","hi"] which looks just like an array containing two strings (on code.org it doesn't show the \'s), but still contains just one, which is fine unless you're using a regular expression to detect whether or not a match is within a string (if every quotation mark after the match has a "partner"), which is what I'm doing in 4 different functions. One flattens a list (since ES5 doesn't have Array.prototype.flat()), one removes all instances of the arguments from a list, one removes all instances of specified operand types, and one replaces all instances of an argument with the one that follows it.
Now I know the odds of a string containing an odd number of quotation marks (whether single or double) is likely extremely low, but it still bothers me that not having a way to differentiate between quotes formerly within a string and quotes which formerly denoted a string (in an array after it's been stringified) as these functions otherwise function exactly as intended. The regular expression I'm using to determine if there's an even number of quotes left in the stringified array is /(?=[^"]*(?:(?:"[^"]*){2})*$)/ where you put the match before the lookahead assertion and anything you absolutely want to follow before the first [^"]*.
To highlight the actual issue I'm trying to solve, this is my flatten function (since it's the shortest of the 4), and yeah, yeah, I know "eval bad" but it's extremely convenient to use here since it shortens the actual modification into a single line, and I highly doubt anyone's actually going to find a way to abuse it given its implementation ("this" needs to be an array for splice to work, so if I'm not mistaken, there isn't really a way to abuse it, but tell me if I'm wrong, since I probably am).
Array.prototype.flatten = function() {
eval(('this.splice(0,this.length,' + JSON.stringify(this).replace(/[\[\]](?=[^"]*(?:(?:"[^"]*){2})*$)/g, '') + ')').replace(/,(?=((,[^"]*(?:(?:"[^"]*){2})*)*.$))/g, ''));
return this;
};
This works really well outside of the previously specified conditions, but if I were to call it with something like [1,'"'] it'd find 3 quotation marks after the \[ and wouldn't be able to remove it but would be able to remove the \], thus when eval actually gets to .splice(), it would look like eval('this.splice(0,this.length,[1,"\"")') causing the error Unexpected token ')' to be thrown
Any help on this is appreciated, even if it's just telling me it isn't possible, thanks for reading my ramblings.
TL;DR: in a stringified array is it possible to differentiate between " and \" (string wrapping quotes of strings within a stringified array and quotes within a string within a stringified array) in a regular expression or any other method using only the tools available in ES5 (site I'm learning on doesn't want to update their project environments for whatever reason)

You are having a problem because your input is not a context free grammar and can not be correctly parsed with regular expressions.
Can you explain why JSON.parse is unacceptable? It is even in ancient browsers and versions of node.js.
Someone writing a json parser might use bison or yacc, so if this is a learning experience consider playing with jison.

I ended up finding a way to do this, for whatever reason (either I didn't notice last night because I was tired or it legitimately changed overnight, though likely the former) I can now see the " when viewing the value of the the stringified array, and lo and behold modifying the regular expression so that it ignored instances of " resolved the issue.
New regular expression for quotation mark pair matching now reads:
// old even number of quotation marks after match check
/(?=[^"]*(?:(?:"[^"]*){2})*$)/
// new even number of quotation marks after match check
/(?=(\\"|[^"])*(?:(?:(?<!\\)"(\\"|[^"])*){2})*$)/
// (only real difference is that it accounts for the \)
Sorry for anyone who may have misunderstood the question due to how all over the place it was, I'm aware that I tend to end up writing a lot more than is necessary and it often leads to tangents that muddle my view of what I was initially asking, which in turn makes the point I'm actually trying to get across even harder to grasp at. Thanks to those who still tried to help me regardless of how much of a mess of a first question this was.

JavaScript String split: fixed-width vs. delimited performance

I am building a string to be parsed into an array by JavaScript. I can make it delimited or I can make the fields fixed-width. To test it, I built this jsperf test using a data string where the fields are both fixed-width and comma-delimited:
https://jsperf.com/string-split-fixed
I have only tested on Windows with Firefox and Chrome, so please run the test from other OSes and browsers. My two test results are clear: String.prototype.split() is the winner by a large margin.
Is my fixed-width code not efficient enough, or is the built-in string split function simply superior? Is there a way to code it so that the fixed-width parsing triumphs? If this was C/C++, the fixed-width code, written properly, would be the clear winner. But I know JavaScript is an entirely different beast.

String.prototype.split() is a built-in JavaScript function. Expect it to be highly optimized for the particular JS engine and be written not in JavaScript but in C++.
It should thus not come a surprise that you can't match its performance with pure JavaScript code.
String operations like splitting a delimited string are inherently memory-bound. Hence, knowing the location of delimiters doesn't really help much, since the entire string still needs to be traversed at least once (to copy the delimited fragments). Fixed-position splitting might be faster for strings that exceed D-cache size, but your string is just 13KB long, so traversing it multiple times isn't going to matter.

JS lexing---multi line string

I am making a JS lexer as part of my study. In JS, single line stings start from " or ' and ends with the same character except if that character is preceded by a backslash.
In my current code, I loop through every character and append them to existing tokens based on flags like "string" or "regex". so it feels natural to implement multi line string with " or ' because it seems that it does not affect any other part of my lexer
Is there any practical reason why new line is not allowed as contents of strings?

Many languages, but not all, prohibit unescaped newlines in string literals. So JavaScript is certainly not unique here.
But the motivation really has little to do with the ease, difficulty or efficiency of lexical analysis. In fact, for lexical analysis the simplest syntax is to allow any character rather than having to include special-case checks. [Note 1]
There are other considerations, though; notably, the importance of a program to be readable and easy to debug. Long strings put an extra load on someone reading the code, because they may not be aware that a section of program text is actually part of a string literal. (There's a similar problem with multiline comments, which is why it's usually considered good style to mark every line in a long comment in some way, for example with a vertical column of stars at the left-hand margin. No such solution exists for string literals, though.)
Also, unterminated multiline strings can be annoying to correct. If strings are cannot span lines, the error will be detected on the line containing the problem. But multiline strings might continue until the beginning of the next string, then triggering a syntax error when the contents of the next string are accidentally parsed as program text. Or worse, resulting in a completely incorrect parse of what was supposed to be program text, followed by another incorrect string literal starting where the second literal ends, and continuing from there.
That also makes it hard for developer tools, such as editors and syntax highlighters, to deal with program text as it is being typed.
In the end, you may or may not find these arguments compelling, and a language designer might have other aesthetic preferences as well. I can't really speak for the original designers of the JavaScript language, and neither of us can take a voyage in time to argue with them and maybe change their decision.
For better or worse, languages are designed according to particular subjective judgements, and if the language is successful these judgements become permanent features. They are things you have to accept if you are using a language and they're not usually worth obsessing about. You get used to them, or you find a different language to program in, with its own syntax quirks.
When you design your own language, you will need to resolve a large number of syntactic questions, and you will undoubtedly run into cases where the answer is not clearcut because there is no objectively correct unique solution. Whatever you do, someone will want to argue with you. Perhaps you can refer them to this answer.
Notes:
There is actually a historic reason for not allowing multiline string literals, which is much clearer but has been more or less irrelevant for several decades.
Once Upon A Time, common filesystems considered text files to be linear arrays of fixed-length lines (often 80 character lines, matching a Hollerith card). One advantage of such a filesystem is that it could instantly navigate to a particular line number in a file, since all lines were the same length. But in any case, for systems where programs were entered on punched cards, the fixed length lines were just part of the environment.
To make all lines the same length, lines needed to be filled out with space characters. This would obviously make multiline string literals awkward, and that's why C never allowed multiline string literals, instead relying on a syntactic feature where consecutive string literals are automatically concatenated into a single literal.
In the end, fixed-line-length filesystems proved to be unpopular, and I don't think you're likley to run into one these days. But a careful reading of the C and Posix standards shows that such filesystems must still be usable by conforming implementations, with the consequence that a fully portable program must be prepared to deal with line length limits on output and trailing whitespace on input.

There is also such syntax
const string =
'line1\
line2\
line3'

JavaScript string concatenation speed

Can someone explain this one to me:
http://jsperf.com/string-concatenation-1/2
If you're lazy, I tested A) vs B):
A)
var innerHTML = "";
items.forEach(function(item) {
innerHTML += item;
});
B)
var innerHTML = items.join("");
Where items for both tests is the same 500-element array of strings, with each string being random and between 100 and 400 characters in length.
A) ends up being 10x faster. How can this be--I always thought concatenating using join("") was an optimization trick. Is there something flawed with my tests?

Using join("") was an optimization trick for composing large strings on IE6 to avoid O(n**2) buffer copies. It was never expected to be a huge performance win for composing small strings since the O(n**2) only really dominates the overhead of an array for largish n.
Modern interpreters get around this by using "dependent strings". See this mozilla bug for an explanation of dependent strings and some of the advantages and drawbacks.
Basically, modern interpreters knows about a number of different kinds of strings:
An array of characters
A slice (substring) of another string
A concatenation of two other strings
This makes concatenation and substring O(1) at the cost of sometimes keeping too much of a substringed buffer alive resulting in inefficiency or complexity in the garbage collector.
Some modern interpreters have played around with the idea of further decomposing (1) into byte[]s for ASCII only strings, and arrays of uint16s when a string contains a UTF-16 code unit that can't fit into one byte. But I don't know if that idea is actually in any interpreter.

Here the author of Lua programming language explains the buffer overhead that #Mike Samuel is telling about. The examples are in Lua, but the issue is the same in JavaScript.

Javascript client-data compression

I am trying to develop a paint brush application thru processingjs.
This API has function loadPixels() that will load the RGB values in to the array.
Now i want to store the array in the server db.
The problem is the size of the array, when i convert to a string the size is 5 MB.
Is the best solution is to do compression at javascript level? How to do it?

See http://rosettacode.org/wiki/LZW_compression#JavaScript for an LZW compression example. It works best on longer strings with repeated patterns.
From the Wikipedia article on LZW:
A dictionary is initialized to contain
the single-character strings
corresponding to all the possible
input characters (and nothing else
except the clear and stop codes if
they're being used). The algorithm
works by scanning through the input
string for successively longer
substrings until it finds one that is
not in the dictionary. When such a
string is found, the index for the
string less the last character (i.e.,
the longest substring that is in the
dictionary) is retrieved from the
dictionary and sent to output, and the
new string (including the last
character) is added to the dictionary
with the next available code. The last
input character is then used as the
next starting point to scan for
substrings.
In this way, successively longer
strings are registered in the
dictionary and made available for
subsequent encoding as single output
values. The algorithm works best on
data with repeated patterns, so the
initial parts of a message will see
little compression. As the message
grows, however, the compression ratio
tends asymptotically to the
maximum.

JavaScript implementation of Gzip has a couple answers that are relevant.
Also, Javascript LZW and Huffman Coding with PHP and JavaScript are other implementations I found.